vill3-第32章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
t have to pay ten shillings and to assist at four boonworks。 The free holders are possessed of plots of irregular size； and their rent is also irregular； but on the average much lower than that of the customers。（75*） Let it be noted that the customary tenants have commuted their labour services into money payments； and。 in fact； they are to be considered as molmen in the first stage of development。 Still； their payments are computed on a different scale from those of the free。 In Brandone； Warwickshire； the typical villain； William Bateman； pays for his virgate 5s。 3d。； and sends one man to work twice a week from the 29th of June until the ist of August； and thence onward his man has to work two days one week and three days the next。 The free half…virgate merely pays five shillings； and does suit to the manorial court。 This last point makes no difference； because the villain had to attend the manorial court quite as regularly as the freeholder； and indeed more regularly ； because he was obliged to serve on inquests。（76*） In Bathekynton； Warwickshire； the difference in favour of the free is also noticeable； but not so great。（77*） And these are by no means exceptional cases。 Nothing is more common than to find free tenements held by trifling services； and whatever we may think of single cases； it would be absurd to explain such arrangements in the aggregate as the results of a bargain between lord and serfs。 It is evident； therefore； that a reference to 'molland；' to a commutation of labour into rent； does not suit these cases。（78*） Can we explain these cases of 'free shareholding' by feoffments made to favoured persons？ We have seen that the lord used to recompense his servants by grants of land and that he favoured the spread of cultivation by exacting but a light rent from newly reclaimed land。 Such transactions would undoubtedly produce free tenements held on very advantageous terms； but still they seem incapable of solving our problem。 Tenements created by way of beneficial feoffment are in general easily recognised。 The holdings of servants and other people endowed by favour are always few and interspersed among the plots of the regular occupiers of the land； be they free or serfs。 The 'essarted' fields are sometimes numerous； but usually cut up into small strips and as it were engrafted on the original stock of tenements。 Altogether privileged land mostly appears divided into irregular plots and reckoned by acres and not by shares。 And what we have to account for is a vast number of instances in which what seem to be some of the principal and original shares in the land are held freely and by comparatively light services。 I do not think that we can get rid of a very considerable residue of cases without resorting to the last of the suppositions mentioned above。 We must admit that some of the freeholders in the Hundred Rolls are possessed of shares in the fields not because they have emerged from serfdom； but because they were from the first members of a village community over which the lord's power spread。 it would be very hard to draw absolute distinctions in special cases； because the terminology of our records does not take into account the history of tenure and only indicates net results。 But a comparison of facts en bloc points to at least three distinct sources of the freehold virgates。 Some may be due to commutation； others to beneficial feoffments； but there are yet others which seem to be ancient and primitive。 The traits which mark these last are 'shareholding' and light rents。 The light rents do not look like the result of commutation； the 'shareholding' points to some other cause than favours bestowed by the lord。 We shall come to the same conclusion if we follow the other line of our inquiry。 It may be asked； whether the community into which the share is made to fit should be thought of primarily as a community in ownership or a community in assessment； whether the shares are constructed for the purpose of satisfying equal claims or for the purpose of imposing equal duties？ The question is a wide one； much wider than the subject immediately in hand； but it is connected with that subject and some of the material for its solution must be taken up in the course of our present inquiry。 I have been constantly mentioning the assessment of free tenements； their rents and their labour services。 The question of their weight as compared with villain services has been discussed； but I have not hitherto taken heed of the varying and irregular character of these rents and services。 But the variety and irregularity are worthy of special notice。 One of the most fundamental differences between the free and servile systems is to be found in this quarter。 The villains are equalised not only as regards their shares in the fields； but also as regards their duties towards the lord； indeed； both facts appear as the two sides of one thing。 The virgate of the villain is quite as much； if not more； a unit of assessment as it is a share of the soil。 Matters look more complex in the case of free land。 As I have said before； there are instances in which the free people are not only possessed of equal shares but also are rented in proportion to those shares。 In much the greater number of instances； however ； there is no such proportion。 All may hold virgates； but one will pay more and the other less； one will perform labour duties； and the other not； one will pay in money； and the other bring a chicken； or a pound of pepper； or a flower。 Whatever we may think of the gradual changes which have distorted conditions that were originally meant to be equal； it is impossible to get rid of the fact that； in regard to free tenements； equal shares do not imply equal duties or even duties of one and the same kind。 One of two things； either the shares exist only as a survival of the servile arrangement out of which the free tenements may have grown； or else they exist primarily for the purpose not of assessing duties but of apportioning claims。 In stating these possibilities I must repeat what I said before； that it would be quite wrong to bring all the observed phenomena under one head。 I do not intend in the least to deny that the freer play of economic and legal forces within the range of free ownership must have produced combinations infinitely more varying； irregular and complicated than those which are to be found in villainage。 A large margin must be allowed for such modifications which dispersed and altered the duties that were originally proportioned to shares。 But a few simple questions will serve to show that other elements must be brought into the reckoning。 Why should the disruptive tendency operate so much more against proportionate assessment than against the distribution into shares itself； in other words； why are equal tenements so much commoner than equal rents？ If shareholding and equal rents were indissolubly connected as the two sides of one thing； or even as cause and effect； why should one hold its ground when the other had disappeared； and how could the dependent element remain widely active when the principal one had lost its meaning？ If the discrepancies between rent and shares had been casual； we might try to explain them entirely by later modifications。 But these discrepancies are a standing feature of the surveys； and it seems to me that we can hardly escape the inference that shareholding has its raison d'etre quite apart from the duties owed to the lord； and in this case we have to look to the communal arrangement of proprietary rights for its explanation； it was a means of giving to every man his due。 If this principle is granted； all the observable facts fall into their right places。 One can easily imagine how free holdings came to exist within the village community in spite of their loose connexion with the manor。 In regard to duties； they were practically outside the community； not so as to proprietary rights and the agricultural arrangements proceeding from them； for example such arrangements as affected the rotation of crops； the use of commons and fallow pasture； the setting up of hedges； the repair of dykes； etc。 There is no real contradiction between the facts； that in relation to the lord every f
